Investigating the effects of dam removal on nutrient fluxes

in Massachusetts
Emily Moothart, University of Massachusetts - Boston
Emily.Moothart001@umb.edu

ABSTRACT LITERATURE REVIEW LIMITATIONS

Dam removal in the United States has grown dramatically in the last twenty years. Dams are • Importance of Estuaries • Limited data and gaps (Figure 7)
removed to restore natural habitats, flows, water temperature, and sediment transport in Coastal estuaries are a “critical component in nutrient pollution control strategies”
o
• Inconsistent monitoring and denied access from landowner
streams. Many previous dam removal studies have monitored sediment transport and hy- (Wollheim et al. 2006) and can remove substantial fractions of the total incoming N
• Censored data
drologic processes, however, there are a lack of studies regarding water quality. Eel River in (Loken et al. 2016)
• Limited resources (e.g. time and money)
o Suggestion: Prioritize dam removals in estuaries to enhance connectivity to ocean
Plymouth Massachusetts will be used as a case study for examining nutrient fluxes. The Eel • Comparative analysis difficult - ‘no two streams are alike’
River watershed is an estuary that discharges into Plymouth Bay and covers an area of ap- (Magilligan et al. 2014)
o ~30% of species in coastal river are diadromous fish
proximately forty square kilometers, with a stream length of approximately six kilometers.
Eel River is historically significant, as it contained a cranberry bog and a 6-meter mill dam • Dam removal nutrient data
o Low discharge streams encounter censored data (below detection limit)
until a major river restoration was conducted in 2010 and eliminated these artificial features
from the watershed. Surface water samples have been collected and analyzed for the last • Censored data requires advanced statistics rather than substitution
o Simple substitution (half value of non-detect) is inaccurate (Helsel 2006) (Figure 5)
eighteen years which presents a uniquely long timeline for site specific water quality data.
This presents an opportunity to examine the spatial and temporal relationship between nu- • Conflicting water quality research
trient fluxes pre-and post-dam and cranberry bog removal. Understanding water quality in o Riggsbee et al (2007) identified increased N
dam removal projects will aid in developing novel insight into dam removal impacts. This re- & C export during post-removal floods com-
search will ultimately provide insight into how to minimize environmental impacts during pared to historical floods with dam in place
future dam removal project. o Velinsky et al (2006) observed no change in
C, N or P from before to after the

INTRODUCTION
dam removal
Figure 5. Table comparing censored methods and substitution accuracy
indicating the liklihood for inaccuracies using substitution (Helsel 2006).

• Eel River, Plymouth, Massachusetts (Figure 1)

o
o
Site of old cranberry bog (upstream) and Saw Mill Dam (downstream)
Conservation restriction and land purchased by City of Plymouth (2003 - 2006)
METHODS
o River restoration to remove cranberry bog and restore to natural ‘wetland’ • Parameters analyzed: Total P(mg/L), N03 (mg/L), Total N(mg/L)
(September 2009 – June/July 2010) • Sampling Methods Figure 7. Temporal dispersion
of site sampling per year
o Samples collected by City of Plymouth from 1998 to 2016. Starred
o Dam removed in January 2010 (Figures 2 - 4) sites indicate locations of
o Discharge data was collected from a downstream USGS stream gage primary nutrient interest.
o Goal to restore connectivity, ecosystem & natural channel processes
• Statistical Methods in R
Main channel, approx. 8 km long

FUTURE RESEARCH
o
o Using She’s method
o Habitat for native Brook Trout
o Have been sampling surface water here since 1998 Censored Data Methods:

Figure 1. Map of Eel River Transformation Product Limit Transformation

Watershed in Plymouth, MA.
Cartographer: Emily Moothart
Censored Data Method
• Analyze data for nutrient flux patterns
Left to right censored Kaplan-Meier estimator Right to left censored • Run statistical analyses
Variance, step-change, descriptive
o
Maximum Liklihood statistics (mean, SD, etc.)
Probability Plotting • Need to process other dam removal
water quality data

DISCUSSION
o Penobscot River, Maine (Figure 8)
• Locate other dam removal water quality
data
o Potentially Tidmarsh Farms
• When, where, and how often should monitoring occur? • Look at Long Term Ecological Research
o Must consider diurnal fluxes (Viswanathan et al. 2015) Sites (LTER) for control site Figure 8. Penobscot River, Maine pre-dam removal
• Have conversations with municipalities who want to do water quality monitoring

CONCLUSION
o Eel River has Nutrient Management Plan, but data is not fine enough for throrough
analysis (Figure 6)
o Potentially establish a Sampling and Analysis Plan (e.g. EPA Brownfields)
• Small scale dams have complexities that make nutrient analysis difficult
• Nutrient water quality monitoring is lacking
o Few studies are completed pre-dam removal
o Most studies don’t go more than two years out of dam removal
• Largely budgetary
o Need to determine what is most efficient way to sample nutrients while
spending as little money as possible
Stressors/Conditions Solutions o Potentially develop sampling protocol for stream investigations
- Multiple barriers that impact fish/wildlife - Remove dam and berms (water control

migration & natural processes
- Channel simplification, incision, modification,
poor habitat (no hydro driver for change)
- Excess nutrients and downstream export
- Bog surface simplification, unnatural transitions,
monoculture
- Limited public use and access
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
strucures), upgrade 2 culverts
- Reconstruct channel and floodplain, enhanc
in-stream habitat, restore lateral connectivity
- Increase hydrologic retention & biotic
uptake I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ellen Douglas, for guiding my research. Beth Lambert, from
- Restore natural topography and plant extensively the Massachusetts State Department of Fish and Game, for her immeasurable help in organizing
my involvement in this project. Kim Tower, my correspondent from the city of Plymouth, Massa-
- Land acquisition, public trail system, interpretive chusetts who has provided me with data and Eel River site knowledge. And my committee
signage member, Dr. Alan Christian, for constructive research suggestions. Also the NSF Integrative Grad-
Developed by MassDEP
uate Education and Research (IGERT) program which helped fund my conference fees.

REFERENCES
• Chittoor Viswanathan, V., Molson, J., & Schirmer, M. (2015). ‘Does river restoration affect diurnal and seasonal changes to surface water quality? A study along the Thur River, Switzerland’, Science
of the Total Environment, 532: 91–102.
• Helsel, D. R. (2006). ‘Fabricating data: How substituting values for nondetects can ruin results, and what can be done about it’, Chemosphere, 65/11: 2434–9.
• Loken, L. C., Small, G. E., Finlay, J. C., Sterner, R. W., & Stanley, E. H. (2016). ‘Nitrogen cycling in a freshwater estuary’, Biogeochemistry, 127: 199–216.
• Magilligan, F. J., Graber, B. E., Nislow, K. H., Chipman, J. W., Sneddon, C. S., & Fox, C. A. (2014). ‘River restoration by dam removal: Enhancing connectivity at watershed scales’, Elementa, 4/108: 1–14.
• Riggsbee, J. A., Julian, J. P., Doyle, M. W., & Wetzel, R. G. (2007). ‘Suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, and dissolved nitrogen export during the dam removal process’, Water Resources
Figures 2-4 . Figure 2 (left) depicts when the Saw Mill Dam was still intact. Note the height of the man standing next to it. Figure 3 (center) depicts Figure 6. Map of Research, 43/9: 1–16.
the process of the dam removal (photo taken April 2010). Figure 4 (right) depicts the post-dam removal restoration (photo taken October 2010). total number of • She, N. (1997). ‘Analyzing Censored Water Quality Data Using a Non-Parametric Approach’, American Water Resources Association, 33/3: 615–24.
water samples col- • Velinsky, D. J., Bushaw-Newton, K. L., Kreeger, D. A., & Johnson, T. E. (2006). ‘Effects of small dam removal on stream chemistry in southeastern Pennsylvania’, Journal of the North American Bentho-
lected at each site logical Society, 25/3: 569–82.
Photos extracted from Mass DEP Report on Eel River Restoration from 1998-2016. • Wollheim, W. M., Vorosmarty, C. J., Peterson, B. J., Seitzinger, S. P., & Hopkinson, C. S. (2006). ‘Relationship between river size and nutrient removal’, Geophysical Research Letters, 33/6: 1–4.